NFL Vets could hold out in large numbers

due to the new Collective Bargaining Agreement:

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20070511_Paul_Domowitch___NFL_veterans_could_hold_out_in_large_numbers.html

NFL veterans could hold out in large numbers
By Paul Domowitch

ONCE UPON A time, training-camp holdouts by NFL veterans were as common as jock itch. But the advent of free agency changed that. So did the harsh financial penalties a team could levy on a player if he played hooky from camp.
But revisions in last year's collective bargaining agreement, which dramatically reduced the financial consequences of a holdout, combined with some of the ludicrous free-agent contracts that were handed out this offseason, could trigger a rash of veteran holdouts this summer.

"You're going to see an upsurge in holdouts of players under contract," Eagles president Joe Banner said. "I think [it will be] dramatic. And it's mainly because of the gutting of the signing-bonus language."

Previously, a club was able to write language into a player's contract that allowed it to recover the remaining portion of the player's signing bonus if he held out or failed in any way to honor his contract.

But the amendments that were added to last year's CBA extension changed that. Now, if a player holds out, a team can only reclaim 25 percent of the prorated portion of the signing bonus amount for 1 year.

In other words, if a player signed a 5-year contract that included a $10 million signing bonus, a team only can take back $500,000.

"It used to be that if you didn't honor your contract, there were very severe consequences," Banner said. "That doesn't exist anymore.

"Until now, holdouts for players under contract have been like here. There's been a modest number, but it hasn't been dramatic. But I think you're going to see a significant increase in them this year. Next year, even more. I think it's going to be a massive distraction."

Longtime agent Jerrold Colton, whose clients include Eagles kicker David Akers and Cowboys cornerback Anthony Henry, thinks the potential for an increase in veteran holdouts certainly is there.

"The [CBA] changes really limit what teams can go after for holdouts," he said. "There's less risk and less to lose for a player now. This has somewhat opened the door for [holdouts] to rise again."

At this point, the Eagles, who open training camp on July 27, don't appear to have any veteran players who are considering a holdout.

 

Sooner or later owners will grow tired of this kind of shit and start suing players and their agents for breach of contract.

 

I've always wondered why they didn't.

 

That street runs both ways.

 

Antitrust Laws?

 

I don't think it would fall under antitrust, more that players could claim that teams can cut them at any time, even before the contract is up, and the player could sue them for a breach of contract that way.

 

Also now that I think about both the team and player could also come after each other for acting in bad faith.

 

I think the contracts are like exclusive service contracts. If a player chooses to play, he plays for the holder of the contract. I don't know that a player could be forced to play and it probably would not be desirable to have a guy on the field in that kind of a circumstance. He can choose not to play at any time just like he doesn't have to be in a contract year to decide to retire.

 

Unionized employees are barred from suing under the antitrust law. When the players did the lawsuit that made free agency, they decertified the union first. That suit was settled after the judge told both sides if they didn't settle, that neither side would like his decision. (A good ploy by the judge).

The NBA also sued the owners under the antitrust laws, but did not decertify. The same judge heard the case, and he made the same threat to both sides. (Settle, or you won't like it.) They did not settle. Then the judge ruled completely for the owners. The players could not sue, because they were unionized. Apparently that's part of the antitrust law.

The union as a whole is pretty happy, so I can't see them decertifying again.

As to massive holdouts, maybe. It hasn't happened yet. I'm thinking that players with not much left to go on their contracts may think its to their advantage to play out the contract, be seen as good team players, and then hit FA. The cap just keeps going up every year. Players with alot left on their deals may be different.

Also, some teams may be willing to tear up contracts for their best players who are massively underpaid, as we just did with Smith.